Archives for : May2013
what is emojis? those emoticons? why are they classist?
Emojis are emoticons that can only be typed by iPhones and read by iPhones and iPod Touches. They cannot be typed or read by computers or non-smart phones. The emoji is inherently classist because it excludes people who do not own expensive Apple products. Most people cannot afford iPhones and iPod Touches… when you type an emoji, you type a symbol that only financially advantaged people can read. That is classism.
Wow. That is a lot of stupid packed into one paragraph. The first sentence alone has at least four factual errors (emoji are not emoticons per se, the plural of emoji is just “emoji”, they can be entered by devices other than iPhones, they can be read by many devices), and it doesn’t get better after that (the poster has clearly never heard of Unicode or the free-with-contract iPhone 3GS).
Obviously, it was beyond the poster’s ability to look up the Emoji entry on Wikipedia.
I’d love to quote Colony Drop’s witty comment from their tweet but, alas, WordPress can’t handle Unicode emoji!
So now CocoaConf Alt isn’t happening. A story at Loop Insight lays the blame more clearly at Apple’s feet for pressuring the Intercontinental hotel, which apparently has some contractural relationship with Apple during WWDC (it’s not said what… possibly housing Apple employees or off-site partner meetings?), and that this contract forbids the hotel from hosting a “competing” event.
I’ve spoken at nearly all the CocoaConf conferences, and I have no reason to doubt Dave’s version of these events. Indeed, while some commenters would like to portray this as a spat solely between the Intercontinental and CocoaConf – and leave Apple out of it – that position doesn’t square with the facts. If the Intercontinental knew they were contracturally prohibited from hosting CocoaConf Alt, they wouldn’t have signed a contract with CocoaConf in the first place, right? Daniel Jalkut makes the best case for letting Apple off the hook, suggesting that someone at either the Intercontiental or Apple got a trigger finger and killed the event when they didn’t necessarily need to. That the Intercontinental realized it was in a conflict-of-interest scenario after the fact is possible, but it’s no more plausible than the idea that Apple doesn’t like anyone riding on their coattails and sent the hotel management a nastygram.
For what it’s worth, that latter scenario is the one that rings true to me. (Or, to haul out a tag I haven’t used in a while, nefarious skullduggery!).